Cenvat credit limitation turns on absence of suppression, and the extended period was unavailable on these facts.

Cenvat credit taken on capital goods while depreciation was also claimed under the Income-tax Act was analysed against the binding High Court position, and the merits were found against the assessee. However, the demand related to credits taken in 2003-04 and 2004-05, while the show-cause notice was issued only in September 2016, and the assessee's stand was supported by then-prevailing Tribunal decisions. In the absence of suppression with intent to evade duty or mala fide conduct, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A could not be invoked, and the demand was held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of Cenvat credit was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The dispute related to availing Cenvat credit on capital goods while also claiming depreciation under the Income-tax Act. Although the merits were found against the appellant in view of the binding High Court decision, the demand covered credits taken during financial years 2003-04 and 2004-05, whereas the show-cause notice was issued only in September 2016. During the relevant period, the appellant's stand was supported by then-prevailing Tribunal decisions, so the conduct could not be treated as suppression with intent to evade duty. In the absence of mala fide intention, invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A was not justified.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the extended period was not available to the Revenue.

---